Florida School Shooting

[Adrift]

Adrift, there is something else happening here - firearms were much easier to get when I was younger, yet we did not see this kind of mass shooting - so what is the real problem? And shouldn't we be addressing that?

There's that deja vu kicking in again. Yes, I agree with you that there is a bigger problem. I believe in a multi-tiered approach that would include restricting/banning weapons, education, and evangelism (among any other approaches that might be on the table),.

[Adrift]

so why don't they just stop making bullets? quickest way to make a gun useless.

Sounds good to me!

[Cow Poke]

so why don't they just stop making bullets? quickest way to make a gun useless.

Reminds me of Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders' "safer bullets".

[Sparko]

Reminds me of Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders' "safer bullets".

They have "smart bullets" now.

Just program them to circle back and kill the terrorist shooting up the school.

[Mountain Man]

I'm curious, are you for the legalization of heroin, crack, meth, PCP, and the like?

Of course not, because I can not think of any instances where those substances can be safely and responsibly used. There is no parallel to gun ownership here.

[Sparko]

Of course not, because I can not think of any instances where those substances can be safely and responsibly used. There is no parallel to gun ownership here.

Self defense! Your Honor! He wuz going to take my baby so I had to overdose him on Heroin!

[Adrift]

Of course not, because I can not think of any instances where those substances can be safely and responsibly used. There is no parallel to gun ownership here.

Well, technically, diamorphine (heroin) is used in hospitals as a severe pain reliever, and there's pharmacological uses for methamphetamines as well, but I suppose I see your point.

[One Bad Pig]

US conservatives have worked hard across the US to promote and propagate a gun culture and been against gun legislation and government provision of mental health support. The results are frequent mass slaughters in the US to an extent not found in the entire rest of the Western world combined. US Conservatives bear the moral responsibility for the effects of the laws they have supported and the culture they have created. To the extent to which you had a part in doing those things, to that extent you are morally responsible for those murders. If you are/pretend to be too stupid to understand that, it does not surprise me, as you seem to like to troll when you engage with me (e.g. your trolling request for video footage of you pulling the trigger, pretending to not understand how moral responsibility works - although it wouldn't surprise me if you just actually have zero clue when it comes to morality issues and moral responsibility and are genuinely completely ignorant - it's hard to tell from your posting how much of it is trolling versus genuine lack of morals and ignorance).

2018-02-16-b06880cc_large.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Well, technically, diamorphine (heroin) is used in hospitals as a severe pain reliever, and there's pharmacological uses for methamphetamines as well, but I suppose I see your point.

Strictly regulated medical use under the supervision of a doctor is the only exception I can think of for narcotics, or even "soft" drugs like marijuana (the "medical marijuana" debate was nothing more than a backdoor for legalizing unregulated casual use).

[Starlight]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26526[/ATTACH]

On the subject of abortion, my country's government is currently in the process of rewriting our 40 year old abortion laws to make getting an abortion easier and more streamlined (removing the hoops to jump through that previously existed of the women having to tell two doctors that she would suffer great mental distress if she didn't get the abortion and two doctors having to sign off). Making the abortion approval process swifter should result in people getting abortions earlier in their pregnancy (the hoops were meaning an average of 25 days delay in seeking an abortion to getting one), which should mean that less women will need to have surgical abortions (operation) and more are able to have medical abortions (pill) due to getting them earlier in their pregnancy. Also women living in rural areas were finding the hoops jumping process a struggle, especially if one of the few doctors near them refused to be a party to signing off on it (which does happen occasionally), as they would then have to travel further to access care.

I imagine the passage of this new legislation will be relatively uncontroversial, as the vast majority of people here support free access to healthcare for all and will be happy to streamline the process. People with anti-abortion views are very few and far between.

[Bill the Cat]

On the subject of abortion, my country's government is currently in the process of rewriting our 40 year old abortion laws to make getting an abortion easier and more streamlined (removing the hoops to jump through that previously existed of the women having to tell two doctors that she would suffer great mental distress if she didn't get the abortion and two doctors having to sign off).

Well then they should now fit right in with your idiocy.

Making the abortion approval process swifter should result in people getting abortions earlier in their pregnancy

And still result in a dead New Zealander.

(the hoops were meaning an average of 25 days delay in seeking an abortion to getting one), which should mean that less women will need to have surgical abortions (operation) and more are able to have medical abortions (pill) due to getting them earlier in their pregnancy. Also women living in rural areas were finding the hoops jumping process a struggle, especially if one of the few doctors near them refused to be a party to signing off on it (which does happen occasionally), as they would then have to travel further to access care.

"Care". What a joke. Making a human being who isn't sick dead isn't care.

I imagine the passage of this new legislation will be relatively uncontroversial, as the vast majority of people here support free access to healthcare for all and will be happy to streamline the process. People with anti-abortion views are very few and far between.

Only when taken as an entire issue...

Source: alranz.org/change-the-law/2017-national-poll-results/

- Pregnancy is a result of birth control failure +31%
– Pregnant mother can’t afford to have another child +27%
– Pregnant woman doesn’t want to be a mother +22%

© Copyright Original Source

So only one in 3 Kiwis think abortion should be legal for birth control failure and 1 in 4 for other matters of convenience. So support for abortion isn't as strong as you claim, as usual. You'll probably reject the sources here:

https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2018/...s-on-abortion/
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO180...n-abortion.htm


but the citizens of your country are pretty clearly more conservative on abortion than you claim.

[Starlight]

https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2018/...s-on-abortion/
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO180...n-abortion.htm

The second link is just a press release from the first link. And the first link is a website run by one guy. He styles himself as some sort of Christian family values zealot / apologist.

Clicking through to the poll itself, which does seem to have been at least somewhat independently run (hard to know how much the person who's money was funding it affected the outcome though). Questions about abortion are pretty infamous in the US for getting different answers in polls depending on precisely what was asked and how it was asked.

Here is the first question and the results in this particular NZ poll that you are citing:

Would you describe yourself generally as someone who supports abortion or someone who opposes abortion?

Support - 52%
Oppose - 29%
Unsure/Refuse - 19%

When they break it down by demographics on the next page, of the four main political parties, there is majority-support for abortion among each of their voting blocs.

But interesting, when asked, in question 4, about the time-limit for abortions in terms of number of weeks into the pregnancy, only 9% of people said abortion should be never allowed at any time in the pregnancy. So despite 29% of respondents saying they view themselves as someone who is generally opposed to abortions, when asked specifically about how they would write the law in terms of when they would and wouldn't legally allow abortions to take place, only 9% of people said they would actually write the law in such a way to ban abortions.

I suggest to you that overall the poll is best read as indicating an anti-abortion sentiment in my country that is somewhere in the 9% to 29% range. Though again, it is a poll funded by a highly highly biased against abortion person, and so I would expect it to over-inflate the anti-abortion numbers.

[Terraceth]

[citation needed.]

Here's a source that states you are completely wrong

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place.

© Copyright Original Source

The article is unclear. How many of those were legally purchased by the shooter and how many of them were legally purchased by someone else but the shooter ended up using, possibly by stealing?

[Adrift]

but the citizens of your country are pretty clearly more conservative on abortion than you claim.

He's proven a number of times that he's well out of touch with the citizens of his own nation (not to mention those in the rest of the world). Heck, NZ just had an anti-abortion Prime Minister, and what's really getting Starlight all excited about the idea of new legislation is that technically abortion laws are more conservative in NZ than they are in the United States, and have been so for decades!

[rogue06]

I'm having deja vu. I've had this exact conversation a couple times on this forum. I imagine the reason there isn't more crime in areas outside of cities that ban guns is because those areas tend to be more affluent, and for that reason tend to have less of the criminal element. The argument isn't that buying legal guns tend to make people criminals, it's that those with who would be criminals shouldn't have easy access to buy guns legally.

So are you one who thinks that simply by having less money -- being less affluent -- tends to cause one to be more likely to be violent? Somehow I doubt that was what you meant.